From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Wed Oct 26 2005 - 10:05:47 CST
At 07:51 -0700 2005-10-26, Doug Ewell wrote:
>It's still not clear to me whether you are actually arguing in favor of
>the hex characters, arguing against the inclusion of the mathematical
>letters (it's far, far too late for that), or arguing that WG2 used
>inappropriate and inconsistent criteria for rejecting the former and
>approving the latter.
(1) This is the Unicode discussion list, not a discussion list for
criticizing WG2 for its decisions. (That there is no such list may
make my complaint moot to some degree, but it is certainly true that
WG2 as a whole will hear no complaint made here only.)
(2) The disposition of comments was as follows. It seems perfectly
reasonable to me.
9.14 Six Hexadecimal digit characters
Input document:
2677 Proposal for six Hexadecimal digits; Ricardo Cancho Niemietz -
individual contribution; 2003-10-21
Discussion:
a. Dr. Ken Whistler: The US national body is strongly opposed to do
this. The use of existing Latin characters is so prevalent that it
will disrupt everything.
b. Mr. Erkki Kolehmainen: I am surprised at the expressed requirement.
c. Mr. Michael Everson: This is a remarkable proposal for
disunification and will invalidate oceans of existing data. We should
not accept duplicate encoding.
Disposition: Not accepted - disunification with Latin A to F will be
disruptive to all existing implementations.
Relevant resolution: M45.24 (Hexadecimal Digits): Unanimous WG2
rejects the proposal for six hexadecimal digits in document N2677 for
the reason that the proposed disunification from Latin Letters A to F
is disruptive to all existing implementations which use the current
encoding of these letters to represent Hexadecimal Digits.
======
-- Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 26 2005 - 10:07:58 CST